Purpose To describe critical care patients with COVID-19 across England, Wales and Northern Ireland and compare them with a historic cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) and with international cohorts of COVID-19. Methods Extracted data on patient characteristics, acute illness severity, organ support and outcomes from the Case Mix Programme, the national clinical audit for adult critical care, for a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 (February to August 2020) are compared with a recent retrospective cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (2017–2019) and with other international cohorts of critical care patients with COVID-19, the latter identified from published reports. Results 10,834 patients with COVID-19 (70.1% male, median age 60 years, 32.6% non-white ethnicity, 39.4% obese, 8.2% at least one serious comorbidity) were admitted across 289 critical care units. Of these, 36.9% had a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of ≤ 13.3 kPa (≤ 100 mmHg) consistent with severe ARDS and 72% received invasive ventilation. Acute hospital mortality was 42%, higher than for 5782 critical care patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (24.7%), and most COVID-19 deaths (88.7%) occurred before 30 days. Meaningful international comparisons were limited due to lack of standardised reporting. Conclusion Critical care patients with COVID-19 were disproportionately non-white, from more deprived areas and more likely to be male and obese. Conventional severity scoring appeared not to adequately reflect their acute severity, with the distribution across PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio categories indicating acutely severe respiratory disease. Critical care patients with COVID-19 experience high mortality and place a great burden on critical care services.

Rationale: By describing trends in intensive care for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) we aim to support clinical learning, service planning, and hypothesis generation. Objectives: To describe variation in ICU admission rates over time and by geography during the first wave of the epidemic in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; to describe trends in patient characteristics on admission to ICU, first-24-hours physiology in ICU, processes of care in ICU and patient outcomes; and to explore deviations in trends during the peak period. Methods: A cohort of 10,741 patients with COVID-19 in the Case Mix Program national clinical audit from February 1 to July 31, 2020, was used. Analyses were stratified by time period (prepeak, peak, and postpeak periods) and geographical region. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted differences in 28-day in-hospital mortality between periods. Measurements and Main Results: Admissions to ICUs peaked almost simultaneously across regions but varied 4.6-fold in magnitude. Compared with patients admitted in the prepeak period, patients admitted in the postpeak period were slightly younger but with higher degrees of dependency and comorbidity on admission to ICUs and more deranged first-24-hours physiology. Despite this, receipt of invasive ventilation and renal replacement therapy decreased, and adjusted 28-day in-hospital mortality was reduced by 11.8% (95% confidence interval, 8.7%–15.0%). Many variables exhibited u-shaped or n-shaped curves during the peak. Conclusions: The population of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs, and the processes of care in ICUs, changed over the first wave of the epidemic. After adjustment for important risk factors, there was a substantial improvement in patient outcomes.

Background We can improve healthcare services by better understanding current provision. One way to understand this is by linking data sets from clinical and national audits, national registries and other National Health Service (NHS) encounter data. However, getting to the point of having linked national data sets is challenging. Objective We describe our experience of the data application and linkage process for our study ‘LAUNCHES QI’, and the time, processes and resource requirements involved. To help others planning similar projects, we highlight challenges encountered and advice for applications in the current system as well as suggestions for system improvements. Findings The study set up for LAUNCHES QI began in March 2018, and the process through to data acquisition took 2.5 years. Several challenges were encountered, including the amount of information required (often duplicate information in different formats across applications), lack of clarity on processes, resource constraints that limit an audit’s capacity to fulfil requests and the unexpected amount of time required from the study team. It is incredibly difficult to estimate the resources needed ahead of time, and yet necessary to do so as early on as funding applications. Early decisions can have a significant impact during latter stages and be hard to change, yet it is difficult to get specific information at the beginning of the process. Conclusions The current system is incredibly complex, arduous and slow, stifling innovation and delaying scientific progress. NHS data can inform and improve health services and we believe there is an ethical responsibility to use it to do so. Streamlining the number of applications required for accessing data for health services research and providing clarity to data controllers could facilitate the maintenance of stringent governance, while accelerating scientific studies and progress, leading to swifter application of findings and improvements in healthcare.

Objective To assess family satisfaction with intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK using the Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit 24-item (FS-ICU-24) questionnaire, and to investigate how characteristics of patients and their family members impact on family satisfaction. Design Prospective cohort study nested within a national clinical audit database. Setting Stratified, random sample of 20 adult general ICUs participating in the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme. Participants Family members of patients staying at least 24 hours in ICU were recruited between May 2013 and June 2014. Interventions Consenting family members were sent a postal questionnaire 3 weeks after the patient died or was discharged from ICU. Up to four family members were recruited per patient. Main outcome measures Family satisfaction was measured using the FS-ICU-24 questionnaire. Main results A total of 12 346 family members of 6380 patients were recruited and 7173 (58%) family members of 4615 patients returned a completed questionnaire. Overall and domain-specific family satisfaction scores were high (mean overall family satisfaction 80, satisfaction with care 83, satisfaction with information 76 and satisfaction with decision-making 73 out of 100) but varied significantly across adult general ICUs studied and by whether the patient survived ICU. For family members of ICU survivors, characteristics of both the family member (age, ethnicity, relationship to patient (next-of-kin and/or lived with patient) and visit frequency) and the patient (acute severity of illness and receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation) were significant determinants of family satisfaction, whereas, for family members of ICU non-survivors, only patient characteristics (age, acute severity of illness and duration of stay) were significant. Conclusions Overall family satisfaction in UK adult general ICUs was high but varied significantly. Adjustment for differences in family member/patient characteristics is important to avoid falsely identifying ICUs as statistical outliers. Trial registration number ISRCTN47363549

Objectives: Early mobilization is recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine ICU Liberation Bundle. The Treatment of Mechanically Ventilated Adults With Early Activity and Mobilization (TEAM) randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared early active mobilization to usual care mobilization and found no difference in the primary outcome of days alive and out of hospital to day 180; however, it did find an increase in adverse events in the intervention group. To date, no RCT of early mobilization has reported costs or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of early active mobilization from the perspective of the healthcare sector. Design: We conducted a prospective, within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the TEAM study. Setting: Forty-nine ICUs in six countries (Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, and Brazil). Patients: The cost-effectiveness analysis included 733 adult ICU patients who were undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation and enrolled in the TEAM study. Interventions: Early active mobilization or usual care mobilization Measurements and Main Results: A significantly higher number of hours were spent by staff in delivering high-dose early active mobilization vs. usual care mobilization; however, incremental costs were not significantly different between the groups ($1,823; 95% CI, –$10,552 to $12,027). EuroQoL-5D 5-level utility scores at 6 months were not significantly different between the groups (0.532 [se, 0.021] vs. 0.548 [se, 0.021]; p = 0.585). The probability of early active mobilization being cost-effective is less than 50%, even at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $200,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses incorporating meta-analysis data indicated that early active mobilization may be cost-saving; however, this involves the occurrence of lower QALY gains when compared with usual care mobilization. Conclusions: Our trial-based analysis found no evidence that higher-dose early active mobilization is a cost-effective intervention compared with usual care mobilization for mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients; however, results from sensitivity analyses provided some evidence that it may be cost saving if one is willing to accept poorer outcomes. Further research is necessary to determine whether there are scenarios in which early active mobilization provides value for money.

Purpose To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. Methods We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. Results Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) − 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI − 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, − 0.65 for EQ VAS (− 5.40 to 4.08), and − 0.14 for Mini MoCA (− 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. Conclusions Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.